Is Compromise a Dirty Word?

Compromise is “a rather complex issue that deserves serious thought.” So I wrote in an August 5 comment following that day’s blog posting in which I cited Max Weber’s oft-quoted statement, “politics is the art of compromise.”

In March of this year, speaking to a small group of college students, President Obama candidly and openly emphasized the importance of compromise. Part of that conversation is included in an article by David Plouffe, a Senior Advisor to the President (available for viewing/reading here.)

Plouffe’s brief article closes with these words: “Compromise isn’t a dirty word—in fact, it’s the only way our democracy can get big things done.”

The President made similar statements about compromise several times in July. And earlier this week, speaking in Iowa, President Obama reiterated, “Congress has to get the message that compromise isn’t a dirty word.”

But last Sunday, on a CNN interview, Rep. Michele Bachmann declared, “On big issues, I don’t compromise my core sets of principles.”

In some ways that is a commendable attitude. I think people ought to stand up for their principles—but only when they are they are the only ones affected by that resolute stance. It is different for politicians or others acting in the public arena.

One of Rep. Bachmann’s core principles seems to be not raising taxes on anybody and not raising the debt ceiling, which was necessary in order for the U.S. to make its payments on money already borrowed. So she voted No on the compromise debt ceiling bill.

But there were a number of liberals who also voted No on the same compromise bill. They, for good reason, did not want to pass the bill that provided no additional revenue.

For Rep. Bachmann and those on the political far right, compromise is evidently thought to be a dirty word. The same is true for those on the political far left.

“Emphasis on Not Compromising” is one subsection of my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism (pp. 68-72). Unwillingness to compromise is one of the most common characteristics of fundamentalists. That is true for “fundamentalist liberals” also.

Often the choice is not between good and bad. Sometimes the choice is between the good (not the best) and something worse. Or often it is a choice between options, neither of which is “good.” But if our only choice, as sometimes is the case, is between two “evils,” is not choosing the lesser of two evils good?

If we are making choices only for ourselves and the course of action we will take, a course that does not directly affect others, we can be idealistic and stay true to our principles and refuse to compromise. Such action is, I believe, virtuous.

But when we are in a group setting, and especially if we are in a position of leadership or responsibility, the matter is different. We have to consider the good of the whole group, not just our personal commitments.

In a group setting, it is a bit arrogant to say, by word or by deed (vote), My way or no way.

The “purists” are loath to compromise, but in the public arena they sometimes cause the good to fail because it wasn’t what they considered to be the best.

Individually, we should always beware of the good becoming an enemy of the best. But sometimes, especially in the public arena, stubbornly seeking the best can become an enemy of the good.

The Art of Compromise

Compromise was finally victorious, although there were several days when it seemed that partisanship and intransigence were going end up being triumphant.

I am speaking about the debt ceiling crisis, which was finally averted on August 2, the day of the deadline. The U.S. House of Representatives voted the day before to pass the compromise bill by a rather decisive vote, 269-161. Then on Tuesday the Senate also passed the bill decisively, 74-26.

It is noteworthy that in the House there were 95 Democrats and 66 Republicans against the bill and in the Senate there were 19 Republicans and six Democrats (and one Independent) who voted No—but for opposite reasons. Right-wing Republicans voted against it because it did not cut enough, whereas left-wing Democrats voted against it because it provided no additional revenue and because of fear that there were needy people who would be hurt by the cuts.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Democrat from Kansas City, called the bill “a sugar-coated Satan sandwich” (whatever that means) and voted against it. Representing the district just below Kansas City, Republican Vicky Hartzler, about whom I wrote recently, also voted against it, asserting that the bill “has the wrong priorities for my district and for America.”

On Monday I heard and read strong criticism of the passage of the debt ceiling bill from both the Right and the Left. That is one indication that the bill was a compromise, for compromise means that neither side is satisfied. (House Speaker Boehner did say, however, that he got 98% of what he wanted.)

But who compromised the most? I think it is clear that the President and the Democrats made the greater compromise. Some have even said that Obama is now characterized not by “Yes I can” but by “Yes I cave.” But what other choice did he have? He had to do what was best for the country, and it became apparent that the right-wing Republicans in the House were not going to make any compromise.

Last week’s cover, and cover story, of The Economist is “Turning Japanese,” a serious criticism of President Obama and German Chancellor Merkle and their lack of sufficient leadership (and an embarrassment to Japan). But that news journal’s strongest criticism is of Republican congressmen [sic] who “have recklessly used [the debt ceiling] as a political tool to embarrass Barack Obama.”

In that same July 29^th issue is an article called “Red means recalcitrant,” which is based on a survey which indicates that Republicans are far less willing to compromise than Democrats. And that is what we saw played out in weeks prior to the August 1-2 vote in the U.S. Congress.

In 1919, the German economist and sociologist Max Weber wrote an essay (“Politics as a Vocation”) in which he stated that politics is the art of compromise and decision-making based on social benefits weighed against costs. Political action, Weber argued, cannot be rooted only in conviction, since one person’s conviction can be another’s social anathema. Thus, a politician should combine the ethic of ultimate ends with an ethic of responsibility.

It can certainly be argued that the latter is what the President did and what most Republican congresspersons were almost completely unwilling to do. It is sad when politicians lose the art of compromise. But that seems to be the case for a large number of U.S. politicians at the present time.

When Compromise Is Not Good

In spite of what I wrote in my previous posting, I do not like compromise. That is one reason I am glad to have spent my life as a teacher/preacher rather than as a politician—although, certainly, compromising on some things was sometimes necessary in church conferences (business meetings) and faculty meetings.

In politics, as most of us realize, compromise is often necessary. And compromise is not always bad. At times it is even necessary and, thus, good. But there are times when compromise is not good.

Compromise is good when it is choosing a lesser evil for the public good. That is the logic behind the Niebuhrian/Obaman justification for war in some cases (although I still question whether that is a good compromise in most cases), and that was the logic behind many Senators voting for a less than ideal health care reform bill last week.

Compromise is bad, though, when it means giving up one’s ideals for one’s own personal benefit. Thus, compromising in order to reap financial benefits or even to gain the praise of others is not good. We should stick to our ideals even though that may mean forfeiting personal rewards that would come with compromise.

Art Gish’s The New Left and Christian Radicalism (1970) was one of the most important books I read in the 1970s. The Christian radicalism that Gish, a Church of the Brethren minister, wrote about is the type preached and practiced by the sixteenth-century Swiss Brethren (Anabaptists) and their descendants.

Gish claims that refusal to compromise was a part of the radicality of the Anabaptists. That is why they could persist in practicing believer’s baptism even when it was illegal to do so (as it was in Zurich after 1526). And that is why they could be consistent pacifists, when all around people were arguing that war is sometimes necessary.

The Swiss Anabaptists were true to their ideals. For that reason, some became martyrs, such as Felix Manz who was executed by being drowned in the Limmat River in central Zurich in January 1527. If push came to shove, I don’t know whether I would have the intestinal fortitude to hold fast to my ideals and beliefs rather than to compromise in order to save my life, but I have nothing but admiration for those who refuse to compromise because of their ideals.

Compromise may be necessary in politics, but doesn’t a strong religious faith mean holding firmly to one’s ideals without compromise?

Realism Triumphs Again

Well, it looks as if health care reform is going to pass. As you know, the Senate version was approved early on December 24, and one way or another the Senate and House versions will likely be harmonized, maybe even in time for the President’s signature before his State of the Union address late next month.

This is not an ideal health care bill. For the Republicans, of course, every health care bill is fatally flawed and to be strenuously opposed. Many Democrats, included the President, it seems, wanted things included in the health care bill that are not there. Many compromises were made, but such compromises had to be made in order to get the necessary votes to pass the bill.

The current issue of The Economist opines, “Every time someone tells you to ‘be realistic’ they are asking you to compromise your ideals” (pp. 38, 40). That is probably true. But the President and many senators had to be realistic and compromise their ideals to some degree in order to get a health care bill passed.

We have to realize that “politics is the art of compromise.” (I have been unable to find a source for that adage.) Also, “politics is the art of the possible” (Otto von Bismarck). As I wrote earlier, in spite of his fine Nobel Lecture, President Obama’s deployment of troops to Afghanistan showed the triumph of realism over idealism. And now with the health care bill, we see realism triumphing again.

While the health care bill leaves a lot to be desired, it is not a bad bill. Although it still leaves out millions, this reform will extend coverage to more than 30,000,000 Americans who don't have it now. This is no small matter, for that number represents nearly 10% of the nation’s population.

The health care reform bill is one example of democratic socialism at work. It is democratic in that it will be enacted by Congress, the democratically elected leaders of the nation. It is socialistic in that the government guarantees health care for at least most of the citizens of the nation.

The health care reform bill is socialistic in the same way that Social Security and Medicare are socialistic. There are problems, mostly financial, with both of those programs. But would any except the wealthiest among us want to do away with Social Security and Medicare? (I challenge those of you who might be opposed to the health care bill because it is socialistic to voluntarily forfeit your Medicare coverage.)

I would like to have had an “ideal” health care reform bill. But I am glad that realism triumphed over idealism, for in this case something is far better than nothing.